130 soldiers dead today?

[Mill]

Is this accurate or a mistake?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I think it was a typo

Updated report from oopskynews

As many as 12 US marines have been killed in fierce fighting in Iraq between Coalition forces and what is thought to have been Saddam Hussein loyalists.
Earlier reports put the death toll after the "intense" battle as high as 130.

CkG

 

[Pennstate]

It said 12 last time. If it was 120, I suspect it was due to friendly fire from the AC-130 or a bomb

 

[Mill]

I didn't see where it said that was a correction. It seemed like 13 were confirmed by the military, but up to 130 had been reported by those there. I hope it is a mistake though.

 

[Bowfinger]

Just a guess, but I suspect the 130 is total dead including Iraqis, etc. Someone at Sky got confused.

 

[nutxo]

Its time to start fighting this war.

We've been dealing with muslim terrorists for 100 years, maybe they need to look to the past to see whast effective.

 

[arsbanned]

OK, pack your bag man and get your a*s over there, they need you!


*crickets*


Seriously though, are you implying the U.S. is not approaching this war in a winner take all manner?
Please. You seem to be hedging. So that when the U.S. gets its a*s handed to it, you can claim we didn't *really* go after those "muslim bastards"....

 

[Martin]

probably a mistake.

 

[chess9]

Good grief, that has to be a mistake. It would take an H bomb to kill 130 Marines in a day.

Semper Fi,

-Robert

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Mill
Is this accurate or a mistake?

There was a mention of a hundred wounded so someone may have added the actual killed to the wounded figure by mistake, no matter how you look at it

 

[arsbanned]

H-Bomb or a determined Iraqi....

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
OK, pack your bag man and get your a*s over there, they need you!


*crickets*


Seriously though, are you implying the U.S. is not approaching this war in a winner take all manner?
Please. You seem to be hedging. So that when the U.S. gets its a*s handed to it, you can claim we didn't *really* go after those "muslim bastards"....

I was in the military for 4 years and would go again. A few years back I fell off a building breaking my collarbone, tearing my rotator cuff ( had a mumford) shattered my wrist (have a prosthetic brace) and injured my back. I have trouble walkin

Have you served your country? No? Didnt think so.

I believe the liberals rhetoric in this country is making the enemy more bold knowing full well that as soon as we have losses they will want to cut and run. I say send more troops, kick the press out and fight a war, not a PR show.

 

[arsbanned]

Have you served your country? No? Didnt think so.

6 YEARS on Carriers. 81-87.
Also, I'm a moderate. Registered Independent.
You thought wrong. Nothing unusual there though.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Have you served your country? No? Didnt think so.

6 YEARS on Carriers. 81-87.
Also, I'm a moderate. Registered Independent.
You thought wrong. Nothing unusual there though.

I stand corrected Unlike many I have no issue with admitting I made a mistake. Which carrier?

edit: I didnt mean to imply that you in particular were a liberal, Im most sorry if i offended.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Mill
I didn't see where it said that was a correction. It seemed like 13 were confirmed by the military, but up to 130 had been reported by those there. I hope it is a mistake though.

Yeah its highly unlikely that we would lose 130 in a two day period. When we lost 600 in ~1 year.

 

[arsbanned]

I stand corrected Unlike many I have no issue with admitting I made a mistake. Which carrier?

edit: I didnt mean to imply that you in particular were a liberal, Im most sorry if i offended.

Nah, no sweat, sorry to react so strongly.
I was on CVN-65 Enterprise, World cruise 82-83, and then later did a (Med) cruise on the Forrestal (85-86 if I remember correctly). I was actually in the Airwing, with a sqaudron.
ANYway, we're both Vets, and should respect one another for that, if nothing else.

 

[AnImuS]

we should just level the middle east.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: AnImuS
we should just level the middle east.

Why not gas chambers?

Zephyr

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: nutxo
Its time to start fighting this war.

We've been dealing with muslim terrorists for 100 years, maybe they need to look to the past to see whast effective.

USA USA USA... Seriously, do you have any common sense? They invaded someone else's country. They are trying to steal all their oil. What are the Iraqi people supposed to do? Sit there and take it. They are fighting back just like I'd hope you would fight back if China or India or whatever country invaded the US. The US has no business there and are getting what was expected. Blame your moronic government.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: nutxo
Its time to start fighting this war.

We've been dealing with muslim terrorists for 100 years, maybe they need to look to the past to see whast effective.

USA USA USA... Seriously, do you have any common sense? They invaded someone else's country. They are trying to steal all their oil. What are the Iraqi people supposed to do? Sit there and take it. They are fighting back just like I'd hope you would fight back if China or India or whatever country invaded the US. The US has no business there and are getting what was expected. Blame your moronic government.

So how much oil have we stolen? I'd like to see some evidence, or is just yet another whiney liberal?

 

[0marTheZealot]

100 years for muslim terrorists? They didn't even exist until we started f***king their land and exploiting them.

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: arsbannedSeriously though, are you implying the U.S. is not approaching this war in a winner take all manner?
Please. You seem to be hedging. So that when the U.S. gets its a*s handed to it, you can claim we didn't *really* go after those "muslim bastards"....

No, the US is NOT approaching this war in a winner take all manner. Winner take all manner would be on the order of half a million personnel minimum occupying Iraq plus the hundred thousand soldiers. Unfortunately, the US public in general is rather stupid and the government isn't any better. Instead, we have the military policing a subjugated population instead of providing security for occupying forces and doing so with far less personnel than required. That's the problem with having a politician as the Commander in Chief. The military is doing its best with what little it has but the brain at the top keeps messing up anyway.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
100 years for muslim terrorists? They didn't even exist until we started f***king their land and exploiting them.

Umm, do the research.

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
100 years for muslim terrorists? They didn't even exist until we started f***king their land and exploiting them.

Umm, do the research.

please show some credible material to support your claims.

 

[CaptnKirk]

That 130 number may be either the combined count (estimate) of both Iraqis and Americans . . .
or . . . .
Our military counts CASUALTIES, both KIA and wounded as combat statistics.

From the casualty count they list the KIA's, and refrain from specifics on the wounded.

Medica; evacuation of the wounded portion of the casualties ties up more troops and assets during a battle than the KIA,
Dustoff has to get them out before they die, and that takes precedent over those killed.
Bodies of the KIA's are handled as a recovery operation - there is nothing more to be done.
Sad, but true.